I did my first stupid thing...

For cripes sakes that's got to be a foot and a half off the ground. WTF are objects a foot and a half tall doing on an aircraft parking ramp? :dunno:

Somebody's strategy needs to be rethunk
 
Jim Logajan said:
So was this a case of the strap getting pulled into the prop and the buckle striking the blade?
Click to expand...

No because it didnt get sucked up, the prop hit it as it was wrapped around the tiedown hook in the ground. The bracket is what i actually hit though. If it were a rope as they had been previously (they had just got them in 3 days prior to my last flight) im sure nothing would have happened or perhaps i would have sucked the rope in. Hard to say being as I didnt turn wide enough in the first place.
 
CFI oughta take the fall for this one; wouldn't he even be liable if a student crashed on a local solo? Seems awfully stupid to have these things in a place where they can get sucked into the prop, too.
Don't be too quick to pay up.
 
I'd like to interview the mental giant who decided to employ that technique for securing tie-downs.
 
I'm seriously leaning towards the airport authorities being liable in this case. Do people park out there at night? Are these contraptions lit up? Are there guide lines painted on the ramp?

How exactly was this supposed to work? It's like: "Hey, let's mark the tie-downs with foot high chunks of rebar so ya can't miss 'em"
 
ebykowsky said:
CFI oughta take the fall for this one; wouldn't he even be liable if a student crashed on a local solo? Seems awfully stupid to have these things in a place where they can get sucked into the prop, too.
Don't be too quick to pay up.
Click to expand...

Well I haven't even solo'd yet. He told me to fill it up and it happened :/

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
 
bordman said:
Well I haven't even solo'd yet. He told me to fill it up and it happened :/

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Whoa, what? Has he even signed you off for solo flight? You need to talk to someone knowledgeable about this asap.

Does anyone know if a non-signed off student can taxi a plane solo?
 
Tommy3 said:
Whoa, what? Has he even signed you off for solo flight? You need to talk to someone knowledgeable about this asap.

Does anyone know if a non-signed off student can taxi a plane solo?
Click to expand...

No regulation against it. He was in the process of parking it anyway, so not even any intent to fly involved.
 
I don't the the FAA or NTSB would hold the student responsible. My $.02 take it for what it's worth, but I want my change back.
 
Tommy3 said:
Whoa, what? Has he even signed you off for solo flight? You need to talk to someone knowledgeable about this asap.

Does anyone know if a non-signed off student can taxi a plane solo?
Click to expand...

Non-pilot mechanics and FBO staff can and do taxi aircraft all the time.
 
Seems totally illegitimate to me for a non-solo student pilot to be dinged (pun!) for this sort of thing. The responsibility seems to be the CFI's.
 
Skylane81E said:
FAA is the final authority here, if it needs more than a quick hit with a file tear that mother down.

I'd bet good money nothing is wrong with it but the AD stands regardless.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the A&P determining if a prop strike occurred, one that caused the prop (& engine) to stop rotating.
 
Tommy3 said:
Seems totally illegitimate to me for a non-solo student pilot to be dinged (pun!) for this sort of thing. The responsibility seems to be the CFI's.
Click to expand...

I giggled. But I don't know how true that is unfortunately. All the instructors here seem to think i'm liable.
 
murphey said:
I was referring to the A&P determining if a prop strike occurred, one that caused the prop (& engine) to stop rotating.
Click to expand...

No need for the engine and prop to stop rotating, not even a need for the engine to be running.
 
MAKG1 said:
Non-pilot mechanics and FBO staff can and do taxi aircraft all the time.
Click to expand...

Yep, I first learned to taxi in a tail dragger with no wings in a parking lot full of cars.

I kind of miss A&P school:lol:
 
Tweety bird, it arrived while I was there so IIRC you being a bit ahead of me may have missed it.
 
bordman said:
I giggled. But I don't know how true that is unfortunately. All the instructors here seem to think i'm liable.
Click to expand...

There are people that are professional advice givers when the liability bucket is being passed around. They are called attorneys. Retain one. Follow his advice. Keep the retainer secret until you really need him to intervene; just like holstering a weapon.
 
Jaybird180 said:
There are people that are professional advice givers when the liability bucket is being passed around. They are called attorneys. Retain one. Follow his advice. Keep the retainer secret until you really need him to intervene; just like holstering a weapon.
Click to expand...

At the rates most attorneys charge, would that even be worth it for 100k?
 
his choices are simple:

Retain a lawyer
vs
buy an engine
 
Sorry I meant 1k assuming that's what it turns out to be.
 
Tommy3 said:
Seems totally illegitimate to me for a non-solo student pilot to be dinged (pun!) for this sort of thing. The responsibility seems to be the CFI's.
Click to expand...

And it's the responsibility of the Twinkie for the fat people, video games for violence etc etc

Dude, it sucks what happened but you were solo at the controls taxiing the plane (presolo or not) and whacked something, man up and deal with it.

FBOs insurance should cover it (this is part of owning a FBO), might have to pay a deductible.
 
bordman said:
I giggled. But I don't know how true that is unfortunately. All the instructors here seem to think i'm liable.
Click to expand...

So the instructors, who may be out money or an insurance claim against their policies should it be otherwise, are saying that they believe you are liable.

I .... would not take that at face value ...
 
ChrisK said:
So the instructors, who may be out money or an insurance claim against their policies should it be otherwise, are saying that they believe you are liable.

I .... would not take that at face value ...
Click to expand...

Uhhh, I think they believe he's liable because he was the one that did the damage.

Does my brain just work strangely, or does this not make sense to ya'll??
 
Are any of them lawyers who represent you? Do you think they might have a dog in the fight? Any wagon-circling in evidence here?

bordman said:
I giggled. But I don't know how true that is unfortunately. All the instructors here seem to think i'm liable.
Click to expand...
 
bordman said:
Yes, not the hook on the ground but the ratchet style "rope"

Example




It is primary training. But i was alone in the plane so I was PIC I would imagine.
Click to expand...

At DTN the airport decided to replace all the nylon ropes with ratcheting style flat strap tie downs. What they found was (after having to buy two 3 blade props) was the lift of the nylon straps was greater than the weight of the metal and plastic ratchet assemblies. It turns out good ol' rope was less prone to being vacuumed up by a prop when it was taxied over.
We now have rope. Again.

As to the dreaded "teardown" for a prop strike;
As I read AD 2004-10-14c it only requires dial-indicating the prop flange (with your little pop I'm betting on 0*) and pulling the accessory case the inspect the crank gear, crank gear bolt and the indexing pin. If all look OK your gold. Replacement of the gear bolt and lock plate are mandatory because if the gear were to come loose the timing between the crankshaft and the valve train and spark making devices goes TU and stuff explodes.
Some shops will say the whole motor must be torn down for inspection which is not true as far as I can tell.
The above being said; with a small incident like yours I think the AD is enough.
If I ever really "wang-ed" my prop on something I would tear that sucker down to look at the whole rotating assembly per Lycoming MSB533a as well as 2004-10-14.

I believe whoever put those straps on the ramp is liable.

Chris A&P Stewdent
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Are any of them lawyers who represent you? Do you think they might have a dog in the fight? Any wagon-circling in evidence here?
Click to expand...

Depending on whether or not one cares about maintaing a positive relationship with the FBO combined with the expense of a lawyer one is probably better off just paying the $1,000 even if they aren't technically liable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top